Ravindu Nethmina Heva Kuda Anthonige v Drip N Dry Services Pty Ltd [2025] SAET 85

The applicant undertook cleaning work for clients of the respondent pursuant to a verbal agreement with the respondent. For the work, he rendered invoices to the respondent in amounts nominated by the respondent.
The applicant submits that the true nature of the relationship was one of employment and that the amounts he was paid are less than his entitlements under the relevant award in an amount of $233.76. He seeks that sum together with interest and pecuniary penalties.
The parties agree that I should determine the employment status as a preliminary point.

For his part, the applicant relies upon the following.
1. The respondent determined the hours of work and remuneration for same.
2. He did not provide any cleaning equipment and materials.
3. The respondent provided him with transport to and from work on most occasions.
4. The respondent told him how much to invoice for. There was no negotiation or agreement of rates ahead of the work being undertaken.

To my mind, the key indicia of employment are the fact the applicant provided no cleaning equipment or materials and that the rates were as nominated by the respondent, generally after the work was undertaken. Conversely the key indicia of an independent contractor relationship are payment by invoice with ABN and contemporaneously working for others. The other factual material relied upon by the parties could be consistent with either.
Ultimately, I am not persuaded that the applicant's relationship with the respondent was that of employee-employer. I find the indicia of contractor status more persuasive. I do not consider the applicant's work was dependent on or subservient to the respondent's[1] but rather he was operating his own business, sourcing work where he could.

[1] See Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 1 at [90]

At a glance